Layer 1 protocols and technologies have evolved including Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) in the 1990s to Optical Transport Network (OTN) in the 2000s. SONET/SDH were synchronous protocols optimized for circuit switching and transmission. OTN evolved from SONET/SDH to provide transparency and support for Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) as well as for optimized transmission of packet traffic. SONET, SDH, and OTN each have a rich suite of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions and support for a wide range of services and applications. Conventionally, as OTN scales beyond 100G (B100G), there are emerging frameworks for Layer 1 functionality, namely Flexible OTN (FlexO or B100G) initiatives in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Flex Ethernet in the Optical Internetworking Forum (OIF).
Traditionally, Ethernet rates were defined in steps of 10×, i.e., 10 Mb/s, 100 Mb/s, 1 Gb/s (GbE), etc. There is a wrinkle in this 10× progression where 40 Gb/s Ethernet (40 GbE) was defined. Today, there are various Ethernet rates defined, including rates in-between established rates. IEEE 802.3 standards group is discussing 2.5 Gb/s, 5 Gb/s, 25 Gb/s and other various odd rates. Specifically, different rates are established for different applications, such as wireless applications, data center group applications, data center interconnections, etc. There is an expectation that different Ethernet rates will continue as new high-volume applications require optimized solutions. Specifically, router/switch equipment and optical transmission equipment are evolving at different rates. There is a desire to support simple transport of n×Ethernet streams across a faster interface. IEEE historically defines Ethernet rates (Media Access Control (MAC) layer) with projects that also define the Physical (PHY)/Physical Medium Dependent (PMD) rates; the MAC rates and PMD rates are tied and defined together. To address evolution in Ethernet and dissociate the MAC/client rate to the PHY/PMD, Flexible Ethernet has been proposed. Note, as described herein, the terms Flexible Ethernet, Flex Ethernet, and FlexE can be used interchangeably.
In transport applications, FlexE can be used to match the flexibility of optical transmission equipment. Specifically, optical transmission equipment (e.g., Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM)) is evolving to support variable modulation formats, Forward Error Correction (FEC) schemes, baud rates, etc. DWDM equipment can support a variable line rate with the same hardware, relying on configuration and provisioning. FlexE is based on Ethernet constructs, e.g., 64b/66b encoding, recognizing the primary client being transported is Ethernet. Note, the current scope of FlexE, as described in Implementation Agreement IA # OIF-FLEXE-01.0 “Flex Ethernet Implementation Agreement—Draft 1.1” (July 2015), the contents of which are incorporated by reference, is limited to interfacing applications (e.g., bonding, subrating, and channelization). However, it may be advantageous to leverage Flexible Ethernet to augment or even replace OTN and/or FlexO in some transport and switching applications.
Currently, time transfer, such as Precision Time Protocol (PTP) over Ethernet interfaces, is outside scope of the FlexE implementation. IEEE Standard 1588-2008 for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems, the contents of which are incorporated by reference, defines a protocol for transferring time across a packet network. ITU-T developed PTP over OTN schemes using the OTN Synchronization Message Channel (OSMC) and a multiframe point of reference. IEEE 1588-2008 would typically use packet delimiting as timestamp point of reference, and then inject this timestamp at the Ethernet PHY. With FlexE, the PTP packet timestamp would have to be done at the FlexE client and would be susceptible to Constant Time Error (CTE). IEEE 1588-2008 only defines a protocol for transferring time information over a packet network. It does not address performance aspects on the time accuracy when adapting to a FlexE shim. The transfer of time over a FlexE shim can be challenging because of delays introduced by elastic First-in-First-out (FIFOs) required in adaptation and mapping schemes. Uncertainty in these delays (at start-up, after fault recovery, etc.) results in uncertainty in the transferred time. Also, FlexE clients are adapted using idles to the FlexE shim adding more uncertainty and variation.